Re: [Marxism] What is wrong with positivism?

[Haines Brown <brownh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Mark, could you elaborate on that connection between Comte and
> Fourier?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 12:34:04PM -0400, Mark Lause wrote:
> > 
> > Comte's idea grew largely from Fourier's concept of passional
> > attraction or an innate mutualism that created natural human
> > communities, as opposed to what the market did.  He wanted to
> > establish a religion of science and a science of religion...what
> > he called a "Church of Humanity."  The notion that social
> > development, like science would be predictive and that, like
> > religion, it would redefine all morality in its image.
> > 
> -- 
> Michael Perelman

It would be interesting to know if Comte and Fourier met or evidence
that Fourier had any influence on him. The notion of an innate
mystical attraction of things was a conventional one at the time, and
so it would be hard to trace any genealogy for it. The idea seems to
have shown up first in Newton's mysticism - his assumption of there
being an inherent "sympathy" of all things for other things.

Is Mark suggesting that Comte was no positivist because he wanted to
make a science of religion? I assume that Comte was thinking of making
science the center of people's lives in the same way that religion
had, not that science was religious in the sense of presuming the
reality of the supernatural. Othersise, Comte would be no positivist!

More importantly, since this thread is about positivism, is Mark
implying that Fourier was a positivist? That on the surface of it
seems extraordinary.

Or by bringing in the supposed influence of Fourier on Comte, is Mark
implying that positivism is fundamentally a religion? Well, that could
be argued in some narrow technical sense, but only after we define
very clearly just what we mean by the word "religion". A "religion of
humanity" is on the face of it little more than a recommendation that
we lend to humanity the same kind of positive value and commitment
that we otherwise associate with religion. It very unlikely means that
society is supernatural or that the basis of our thinking should be
unscientific dogma. In the context of a discussion of positivism, the
latter possibilities would seem to be implied, and that surely would
be incorrect.
 
> Seen as a variant of "utopian socialism," we should realize Lenin's
> insight in his article on "revisionism," that Marxism, as it
> developed incorporated utopian ideas and that these resurface within
> the broader context of Marxism.

Lenin was a utopian? That would be an extraordinary assertion, and
contrary to the general understanding of him. There's no question that
utopian rhetoric was used to mobilize people, and I fear that some
Marxists have been rather dogmatic, but no one seriously suggests that
Marxism is utopian or in in some way fundamentally religious (except
Leszek Kolawowski, of course ;-))

When Marxism arose, positivism was dominant, and so when the early
Marxists made an appeal to science, some positivism crept in. This can
be seen particularly in Engels. For example, Marx shared with Comte a
commitment to social change based on scientific principles. While that
is obviously characteristic of positivism, it is not the same thing to
suggest that anyone who seeks social reform by using scientific
methods, which is almost universal today, is for that rason a
positivist.  

The general view today is that Marx and Engels were in accord
(vs. Z. A. Jordan) on the issue of science, and that their scientific
notions basically contradicted those of positivism. Probably the
standard treatment of this in English is Helena Sheehan, Marxism and
the Philosophy of Science: A Critical History (1985). Another approach,
although not as fully developed, is the suggestion that Marx and
Engels were scientific realists (process theory; general systems
theory, etc.) and this surely contradicts positivism.

> From Lenin's perspective, if you want to see positivism, look around
> within the movement that calls itself "Marxist."  Is there a
> mobilization of religious zeal on behalf of the church?  Is there an
> insistence that its positions represent the result of science?
 
Surely there was a Marxist movement/praxis up to 1989 or 1991. There
still is in various places in my view, although it is also argued it
had died by that time (see Ronald Aronson, After Marxism, who also
discusses the rule of utopian rhetoric in Marxism). So why "calls
itself"? Is Mark insisting that Marxism is really a religion? That has
been suggested, but Mark's point carries no weight unless he cites a
recent recognized authority. Is he suggesting that despite its claims
the movement is not really scientific at all? Again, the point would
carry weight only if supported by a citation of a recent authority.

> In the end, religion doesn't change...and consistency was popularly
> understood as a fundamental feature of science at the time.....

I've no idea what is meant by the suggestion that religion does not
change. Religion has a rich and interesting history everywhere in the
world. Did Mark mean some kind of general religious sensibility? I
suggest that he give a careful reading of Stanley Jeyarija Tambiah,
Magic, science, religion, and the scope of rationality (1990). Tambiah
makes a case that it is possible for a scientific and a religious
sensibility to coexist (I'm not persuaded, but I'm odd man out on this
issue).

And as for consistency, perhaps Mark is here thinking of Hume's
constant conjunctures. If so, that indeed was part of positivism, and
remained the standard view into the 20th century, when it
collapsed. Today is is clear that Marxism really never ebraced
constant concuncture explanation or was predictive or looked to
general laws.

I don't see what is the relevance of Fourier or Marxism to
positivism unless Mark makes explicit points and attempts to justify
them. To argue that Marxism at once (and contradictorily) represents
both a religion and positivist scientism can perhaps be defended, but
Mark does not choose to do so.

Haines Brown 

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism